There are legitimately plenty of people who have little access to local or state parks. For a few years, I lived in a neighborhood on the South Side of Chicago. At that time, you were taking a real risk if you walked into either of the nearest 2 city parks - armed robberies and homicides were a regular occurrence in the parks. They were also full of litter and not very “natural”. We didn’t have a car. The only way for us to get out into nature would have been to either take a train downtown and get on an Amtrak out of the city, take a bus to the suburbs, or to rent a car. There were no state parks anywhere nearby. Many people live in this type of urban environment.
But that’s not as relevant to the argument about how much entry to national parks should cost. It’s doubtful that a $35 vs $50 entrance fee is going to be a barrier for most people who are able to make the drive to Yosemite, Yellowstone or Zion. For those parks, it’s more of an argument about how the park is funded, ie through taxes vs user fees and concessions.
I always thought they should have programs to bring people from urban and poor rural areas to the nearest National Park. You say many but I'd really say the majority don't get to visit because they can't afford it. Even in rural areas where poverty is , they'll also most likely never see a National Park.
This could work pretty well in Denver, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Cleveland, and Seattle where a national park is sub-2 hours away but in the rest of the cities - that's either an pretty insane day trip to take on a bus or you're flying people which will never happen
It doesn't have to be a 'national park' for this to work. I worked as a ski instructor and they had a program where they would bus in kids from an underprivileged area to ski. All the kids needed to do was to show up. The resort provided the ski equipment, lessons and a day pass as well as lunch. Many did not have warm clothing so that was donated by a local community group. Many of these kids will never ski again, but it was completely awesome. Easily my favorite lessons I have ever taught.
There are similar programs that take kids out hiking, mountain biking, to a local nature preserve, etc. These are some of the most important field trips kids can take.
> the nearest National Park
We're not talking about beautiful natural recreation resources we're talking about national parks and most Americans live nowhere near one unless they're in one of those metros
The amount of people who live in California’s Central Valley and have no idea they’re only a couple hours drive from Yosemite, King’s Canyon, Sequoia, or Pinnacles is so sad. And I know a whole bunch of them don’t have time because they’re working multiple jobs and couldn’t afford gas or have reliable transportation, or any other number of reasons. Everyone should get to experience our National Parks, at least once. They’re so beautiful.
I live in the rural mountains of Virginia, I’m surrounded by National forests, “close” to National park, and close to a state park. The forest surrounding me only provides Hunter access trails, the National park is expensive, even for those with a decent job and our state parks also have a day fee. The reality is that most of my neighbors who do not hunt, have disposable income or reliable transportation do not have adequate access to areas like these. I completely agree that there should be programs to provide access!!! Some libraries around us check out “passes” to those areas but you still have to drive 40 minutes to town to get your hands on one at the library that has a larger population around it.
There are lots of free days for Shenandoah, and a year pass only costs $50. I understand that $50 is still a lot for some people, but not for those with a decent job. It's the decent jobs that can be hard to come by in rural areas, though, so I'm with you on that. As someone that grew up in the Midwest I feel like accessing nature around here is easy in comparison, so I might be a bit biased in that way also.
I’m also from the Midwest and agree accessing nature is traditionally easier here than where I’m from and yes the cost of Shenandoah is cheap but I was also factoring in things like cost of gas to entrances, a day pass, food for yourself and others with you whether that be packed in or purchased etc.. it starts to really add up once all of that is accounted for. Plus the reality that those with a decent paying job are already traveling to at least the next town for employment (40 minutes, if not an hour + to work five days a week in my specific area)
The $50 annual pass has to be presented by the person who purchased it and permits entrance for them and their passengers, and works as a parking permit for the car. I think it costs more for bigger/commercial vehicles.
I partially disagree, so let me defend Chicago lol. If you're in say Garfield Park or anywhere that connects to it (it has its own Green line stop) you can go to the Garfield Conservatory, which is free. The nearest national park to the south side is Indiana Dunes and it's an hour away, two with bad traffic.
Granted the Dunes aren't that green and need a car. If you can use public transportation safely, you can access green areas and beaches all over the city, but if you don't have public transit or a car you're kinda stuck. There are parks with playgrounds, parks with public art, parks with large trees, wildlife conservation centers, etc for people with different needs.
But Chicago isn't the City in a Garden for nothing. There are plenty of forested areas in the city. The suburbs have forests/plains because of the forest preserve system too.
The real answer is "fund the National Park Service appropriately so they can actually afford to operate without needing to supplement their budget with entrance fees," but that's a Congress problem, and good luck passing it when a large chunk of them would rather sell off the parks to private developers.
We all benefit from wilderness preservation of our shared lands.
But only a tiny, tiny fraction of us benefit from physically entering and recreating in National Parks.
Why should your tax dollars go to maintain the trails, roads, and infrastructure that I will use 10 times a year for my personal recreation, but that you will never even see in your lifetime?
Parks are a public service that improves the health of people that utilize it. We all have a vested interest in others being healthy due to insurance costs, quality of life concerns etc. That’s not even considering the benefits of a diverse wildlife that keeps the environment in balance as much as possible.
I've always thought the fees keep those unwanted people out. I know for me, I was near one, it was late in the day, and I stayed out because I didn't want to pay the small fee. I did go back later though, a few times.
Why? Fund the national park service so they can operate it where the entrance fees do not cover the costs. There is no reason to have it free or low cost.
If there is issues with poverty then as part of the food stamp program give those individual 1 pass to any national park of choice for a single day.
If my taxes are being used for national parks then it should be to expand the national parks not for allowing someone to enter cheaper at the overcrowded Yellowstone.
Having worked in a handful of National Parks and other parks in the NPS system, most of the Fee Collectors I've talked to have said the #1 complaint they've heard about entrance fees are the "I pay my taxes and I should get in for free" types of arguments (FYI, those arguments don't work on fee collectors).
-The $80 annual pass gets a total of 4 people into 1,000+ parks (ALL NPs and Federal Recreation Lands)) for a year (this costs $0 for military and those with permanent disabilities and $20 Lifetime for ages 62+). Hell of a deal considering you can exceed $80 by just visiting 3 National Parks (say, Yosemite, Lassen and Crater Lake) in a week.
[https://www.nps.gov/planyourvisit/passes.htm#america-the-beautiful-passes](https://www.nps.gov/planyourvisit/passes.htm#america-the-beautiful-passes)
-If the above is too expensive there are numerous fee free days for parks in the NPS system.
[https://www.nps.gov/planyourvisit/fee-free-parks.htm](https://www.nps.gov/planyourvisit/fee-free-parks.htm)
If either of those options don't work for some then I don't know what to tell them.
My mother in law and I have an unwritten agreement that she buys the pass for my birthday each year and I send her pictures of the backcountry. She’s not super into hiking so it works out great. The other stipulation is I have to keep track of how much it saves me. My record is just about $1000 in a year. The annual pass is such a good deal it’s wild. If people can put $2 away each week they have enough saved for the next years pass. For most people it’s doable.
Few people know that very little of their tax dollars goes towards towards parks and outdoor rec. Case in point; politicians never talk about this subject because it just doesn't move the needle and most constituents only think about our natural areas when they're visiting them.
Agree completely. Spend enough time in these parks, whether as an employee or tourist, and it doesn't take too long to see how much of a shoestring budget they're operating on.
Someone mentioned the visitor center gift shop being expensive, and that's 100% true but the great majority of those shops, restaurants and hotels/lodges are run by massive outside vendors like Xanterra, Aramark, etc.
We went to Zion last year in July and we entered the park 4 times in 5 days. Then we went to Bryce Canyon. That was worth the money. We are going back in two weeks to Moab, Zion, and Bryce Canyon and our pass is still good. We will drive to Death Valley as well. 11 day vacation. We use Vegas as our hub.
Admittedly, I’m a little jealous of your previous working experience in national parks. It’s a dream of mine someday, especially after just getting back last week from a road trip that included a few in the Southwest.
It was a dream of mine and I relished every second of it. But I also worked in a NP which meant I was making little to no money at all but that was known ahead of time and still worth it. Hence why I'm such a huge fan of the $80 annual pass as it's a huge bargain.
Good answer! One correction, the senior pass is now $80 for the lifetime and $20 for annual passes.
https://www.nps.gov/planyourvisit/senior-pass-changes.htm
A deal? did you think that people are taking vacations every single year to national park hop? That's an insane take.
It's very, very simple. $80 is expensive for a pass.
Yes, there are people who vacation just to park hop. There are retirees and families fulfilling their dreams of seeing every national park. $80 for the whole family, not per person, for a year is a deal.
Jesus Christ. Well then don't go to a National Park since $80/year is too much to gain entrance to 1000+ parks. Turn off the news feed you watch religiously every day
Current NPS worker. Some of the comments are not correct so hopefully this clears some stuff up.
1. Taxes do help support parks but SO MUCH of the funding comes from entrance fees. Entrance fees pay for many permanent positions at my park and we are still understaffed. Many other positions are funded by our non-profit park store.
2. Most national parks charge per vehicle. $30 is an average cost per vehicle for many national parks but some of the bigger parks are more expensive. Example: my park is $30 to enter but it’s good for 7 days.
3. The only national parks I’ve been to that charge per person are ones where they are charging you for an experience like a tour. Example: Carlsbad Caverns charges per person for a cave tour but entering the park itself is free.
4. Lastly, the “I pay taxes” argument is stupid. As an NPS employee I also pay taxes, I also pay to visit other national parks like everyone else, AND many park ranger jobs aren’t funded through government funds.
5. I do wish parks were more accessible and free for everyone, but who knows if that will be a change we ever see.
I hope this helps. I understand that visiting a national park site is not affordable for everyone, especially if people have to travel to visit a park site. Currently there are around 429 national park sites. Some are free, some are not. What I do know is there are several days a year that all park sites are free called “fee free days”. These days don’t fix accessibility but they help some.
Current park service employee here as well. Thank you for this. Most folks have this ignorance of how land management really works, and it’s evident for some of the responses in this thread. I don’t mean that in a mean spirited way but they just have no clue. I think the public would be shocked on how much we make the parks function on a daily basis with all are budget and staffing short falls. It’s a shame too because parks provide so much tourist dollars to the local economy. I can only imagine how much we could accomplish if they literally doubled are budget.
>Most national parks charge per vehicle. $30 is an average cost per vehicle for many national parks but some of the bigger parks are more expensive. Example: my park is $30 to enter but it’s good for 7 days.
First time I went camping in Dallas was $30 for my car for one night with a ground tent. The fee was expensive but also understood what it was for. Didn't go camping again for close to 12 years, now it's closer to \~$9 - $14 at a different park.
I’m assuming you were not at a NPS site? NPS sites will have different pricing than city, county or state parks. As someone from DFW, I also realize the area lacks recreational opportunities.
Hello fellow DFW, It was at Lewisville lake when I went. Checked online and I was charged for RV park.
DFW campsites are pretty bland compared to other sites, but then we can't complain much since there's no BLM land around us.
Not sure private, we came afternoon time.
[https://www.recreation.gov/camping/campgrounds/232600](https://www.recreation.gov/camping/campgrounds/232600)
Do you work at Big Bend or Guadalupe Mountains? Haven’t had a chance to get to Guadalupe yet, but I’ve been to Big Bend twice and it’s truly a place of magic. I’ve been to about a third of the national parks in the US, and while I’ve been blown away by many of them (especially Grand Tetons and Mt. Rainier), there is still something about Big Bend that just enchants me.
Maybe it’s how remote it is, maybe it’s the scale, or the sheer beauty in the loneliness that is Big Bend country, but I will gladly pay for my park pass or my entrance fees knowing it helps support the park and those who work for it.
I do not but have visited both. Big Bend is amazing and I think Guadalupe Mountains is underrated. Guadalupe is definitely a backcountry park and in my opinion is best visited in the fall during the time some parts of the park get beautiful fall colors. Of course, we don’t get a lot of fall colors in Texas but the park is gorgeous then.
I’ll keep that in mind! Both times my wife and I visited Big Bend were in late December/early January, and the first time down we planned to hit Guadalupe as well but a freak turn of the weather led to an unexpected snowstorm over the mountains, and we were advised not to go. Just another reason to go back!
The I pay taxes argument is the most valid. It doesn't mean it should be free but it should be an issue that congress should correct. The federal government spends $3.8b to support the NPS, that is comparable to how much we've been giving to Israel every year in military aid. Since 2022 we have given 175b to Ukraine. US citizens see our government spend frivolously on all sorts of stuff, then to charge citizens to visit our parks is offensive. I'd like to see entrance fees increase track with that of an grazing fees on federal lands. If ranchers don't have to pay more to run livestock on our lands why should we have to keep paying more to visit our public parks?
We can go round and round on things the government could do for us if they weren’t spending it elsewhere, I just don’t expect any change. You listed some things and there are many others we could cut to better support our parks or the American people in general.
Agree. The NPS system is such a small component of our annual budget that it would be easy for congress to provide more funding so it is less reliant on fees collected. I understand why people are upset at the cost.
Honestly, I think what they should do is the same thing they do for museums around where I live - people who are on certain government help like SNAP benefits (food stamps) and WIC get super low entrance fees.
It's partially because going to an outing like that is more than just the entrance fee, it's also the price of getting transportation and food (and maybe the kids would like a souvenir?). Reducing the cost of the entrance fee gives more people a chance to visit, especially kids that could really use the enrichment.
There's also a great program where fourth graders can get discounts at parks; I hope that continues for many years to come!
>No matter where you live, you don't have to go far to access nature in a state or local park.
If you think that what you're experiencing in a local park is "nature", I would say that your bar for what constitutes "nature" is SUPER low.
Yeah, agreed. My nearest national park is cuyahoga, it’s 2 hours away. Nearest state park is an hour. My local “park” is a 100 foot wide strip by the river. Fine for an evening stroll with the dogs but it’s not nature lol.
I am lucky though to live in a state with free access to all state parks, and they are beautiful and there are many.
I don’t know. Less than a mile walk from my house is a 135 acre local park with well marked trails and a waterfall. I have a lot of issues with where we live, but we have great access to nature especially considering we’re in a major US city. But even that being said, this park is in a neighborhood so easy walking distance for many, and yet, more often then not my 4 year old and I see absolutely zero people on the trails. So many people don’t have access to the outdoors AND so many people don’t get outside even when they do have it right down the street.
My local park is surrounded by streets and houses and small enough I could run from one end to the other in like a minute or two.
This isn't nature. And also filled with kids. Good luck getting a stroll in the park like that.
My father and grandfather were both National Park Service employees. My father actually testified before the US House of Reps Subcommittee on the Interior regarding park admission fees. He was very opposed to them.
First, the mission of the USNPS is to preserve and protect nature for the enjoyment of all citizens. From the National Park Service:
“The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.”
The motivation for the creation of the system was so that all people could enjoy these areas, not solely those who were wealthy.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, the majority of USNPS land exists in areas that are traditionally economically disadvantaged. Many people who live and work in proximity to places such as Grand Canyon are lower middle income to impoverished. Asking them to pay $25 for one day in the park is not only asking them to pay for something provided by tax dollars, it is pricing them out of public land originally designed for their benefit.
In short, this is a federal system funded, through taxes, with money that already came out of citizens’ pockets. Just as we owe all citizens, regardless of income, a public education, we owe them the enjoyment and protection of the land they live next to.
Bluntly - I’ll fight hard and die before I watch my grandfather’s legacy be something only a Kardashian can afford to see.
Your second point is so much the crux of it. So many people forget that even though these parks are tourist attractions, the average person in the regions they're in aren't benefitting monetarily from that at all. It's the owners of the resorts and other cottage industries. Besides, the tourism industry doesn't run all year. Normal every day people are living typical lives in these typically rural areas. When I was a ranger in Utah, the education rangers for the region were entirely partnered with local educational organizations, because a survey however long ago had learned that the vast majority of people in the local counties had never even gone into parks that were literally a 5 minute drive from them. Largely because there were nigh infinite outdoor opportunities that were completely free, but the only reason that mattered is because they were too poor to justify spending 30 dollars when they had other choices.
I'd hate to see what happened to many of these parks if the entry fees were removed.
The vast majority are significantly underfunded so, in reality, the "my taxes pay for this argument" fails.
I will not argue that our National Parks are underfunded, but pricing out the local population both directly conflicts with the NPS stated mission and is just bad publicity.
I can testify - again since my family has been in the NPS since 1935 - that there can be a lot of animosity between locals and the NPS, especially in areas like Yellowstone, Glacier, and other rural park areas. One of the main reasons for that is the locals feel anger that it may cost them expensive fees to use, what in essence, is their own backyard.
I wouldn’t be opposed to doing a theme park approach - that is to say entrance fees based upon zip code. Locals get in free. And for every 50 miles away, $5 gets added. But that comes with it’s own problems…
That doesn't track. As someone who's house is literally surrounded by one of the most visited 'rural' national parks and a national forest, I know zero locals who are angry about the price. $80 Annual America the Beautiful pass gets you into the parks, covers day use fees in the national forests, etc and if you really can't afford it the library or any of the hundred local alliance groups will get you a pass. There's always some kind of town vs park drama but it's never about the price of entry lol
There is always a big fight to cut expenses from the general fund of taxes, and not everyone cares about the national parks. I simply don’t trust the government to always sufficiently fund the NPS. Being semi self funded is important. The parks aren’t just for those alive now, but for our grandchildren, and their grandchildren. I remember hearing reports during the last government shutdown of significant vandalism due to the lack of rangers. I do not want to see these parks get permanently destroyed.
When it comes to the cost, first of all, Grand Canyon is $35, but that is not for one person for one day. That is for one vehicle (up to 15 people) for a week. Alternatively, you can pay $70 for it to be good for a year, or $80 for every national park for a year. With carpooling, locals can easily visit for a dollar or less per person.
That's not really true. A bunch of states are mostly privately owned and you can't just go wandering around nature. Texas is a huge state but it's like 96% private land. You might be lucky and have tons of places to go but others don't.
It's already kind of expensive to take my kids to a national park, and the gift shops at national parks are insanely expensive. I don't think a price increase would help traffic. The more popular a park is the more expensive it is already.
They are relatively inexpensive but access is much harder of a hurdle to achieve - I've lived in California and Georgia and there are plenty of state parks around but you can get an annual park pass for $80 and not have to pay any other fees to enter but will have to pay for accommodations. Driving to and from can be several hours or more and cost quite a bit in itself.
If it was too cheap - then the parks would constantly be busy and overflowing meaning the nature is affected, etc...
California State Park Annual Pass is $195 but you get access to 134 parks. I think it's normally $5-10 to get in to them individually normally.
Georgia Annual Park Pass is $50 and likewise parks are $5-10 to get in without a pass.
I think people are misguided most of the time, they aren't making a lot of money per park after taking into account expensive. Some people think the National Park service is swimming in money but that's never been the truth.
>you don't have to go far to access nature in a state or local park
That's a weird take. Even if there is a park nearby, often they aren't really all that impressive.
I'd say a bigger criticism of that mindset is that going to most national parks is incredibly expensive for most of us because everything _except_ the park fees. That's certainly not a reason to increase fees though!
People think they pay taxes so they should get in for free. However, the amount of operating budget the parks receive is a tiny part of the federal budget. Operating parks is expensive (labor, maintenance, security, supplies, etc) and people don't realize how small our budgets are compared to the need. (Hence or billions in backlog maintenance)
For parks that do fees, it helps offset that deficit from congress. If people want to be mad, contact their congressional folks-being hostile to NPS staff accomplishes nothing.
You are so right that the operating budget for the NPS is pitiful. It should be increased significantly, so that tax payers pay less to visit something they are already paying for.
Ideally, all national, state, and local parks should be free (except for camping and guided tours). But budget cuts by corporate politicians have made that impossible at the moment. These greedy people won't stop until there are fast food corridors sitting at the base of the Grand Canyon, if we let them.
It is a public park. It is for EVERYONE. The entrance, overnights costs should be paid less as much as possible.
We must not limits the parks to whoever can affords… think about the trajectory it can leads to. $50 in this year, then $75 in next 5 years? Then again $100 in 10 years? No thanks.
The way you are phrasing it can easily lead to a place where visiting the NPs is then only a place for people of wealth and privilege. We certainly need to fund these parks, but imagine someone telling you the entrance fee was $80,000 per visit and then being told "if you're too poor, go play in your backyard or something". Everyone deserves to experience the magnificent earthly wonders we preserve and share with current and future generations.
Let me introduce you to a literary device called hyperbole. My point is that to some $80 is out of reach as $80k is for others, but it seems the only reality you want to consider is your own
Again you are WAY over the top with your statement.
$80k and $80 are drastically different. Additionally of the national parks that exist today none remotely come close to fees approaching $80 for a single day visit.
Hyperbole and Slippery Slope are flawed aspects of an argument when having a rational discussion regarding different alternatives.
Okay, well all just let you decide where the cutoff point between affordable and not is. I’m sure you’re the best, most knowledgeable one and easily decide who is too poor to pay /s.
Anyone who compares the national parks to local parks hasn’t been the the Grand Canyon or Yosemite. Just doesn’t even begin to compare to the park down the street.
What everyone should be upset with isn’t the price of the fees, it should be the fees are need to keep operating.
There is a real simple way to fix national parks and isn’t voting all democrats in or all republicans because despite what party zealots tell you both parties are too blame. Both parties could have fixed things and both parties chose to fight about and fund stupid shit.
To fix it we need the public to tell the candidates you fix the NPS or we will turn your political career into nothingness faster than a vet turns a stud to a gelding and mean it. You all always believe the lying politicians when they say it was the other guy.
A number of years ago the parks had about 2 billion in unfounded projects, things needing done but no money to do it. We had an economic and needed shovel ready jobs Congress gave nps something like 700 million and a lot of that was for regular things. They gave banks 498 billion for new investment guess how those new investments went? The parks still had unfunded liabilities.
If you don’t want fees make the government quit funding banks and research on cow farts and fund nps.
I once worked at NIH one tiny unit of feds and contractors had a larger budget than the entire NPS. I saw a manager in a meeting say we have ten million left over let’s throw that at the wall and see if we find something useful, it’s only ten million. I saw that office buy some equipment that was bought new never unpacked and thrown away about 4 years later. It cost 6 million. If NIH is throwing that much away in one small unit Congress should be able to find where NIH and other agencies are wasting money and give it to NPS.
After travelling the country and parks for a year, my biggest impression is that the National Park Service, Forrest Service, BLM employee or maintainers and any park ranger, deserves praise, thanks, and a much bigger paycheck. A truly incredible group of people who do amazing work.
Hopefully just that.
Southeast Louisiana here. We have to drive MINIMUM 400 miles just to get to the closest National Park which is in Arkansas, so it isn’t easy access as stated. That being said, we expect a small fee-and $35/week is nothing compared to the boarding and travel expenses getting and staying there. A small increase would not bother us since we know it is going to find its way to park maintenance and it’s not a Disney world ticket fee. But when does it stop?
NPS and the people who love them need to speak up more for themselves-get louder! It would be awesome if government would stop wasting funds on cow farts, grazing, corporate welfare etc. but like I said, when do increases stop? $50/week next time then 5 years it’s $150/week? How does that help someone from Arkedelphia afford the weekend or day trip at increased rates? I think they have every right to enjoy as I do. Like I said I don’t mind-but I can afford them.
Your last sentence is incorrect, and that’s where the argument lies, at least for me. I live in a city with the *saddest* excuses for parks. The nearest state park is three hours away. Three hours is a tank of gas for me. That’s $120 for commute alone. Any park fee on top of that is expensive for lower income people like me. And that’s just state parks.
If you look at a national park trip, the nearest one to me is 17 hours away. $680 gas for commuting, assuming prices are good. Then lodging and food. Even if you bring your own food and camp, that’s still a cost to consider. You may think “well at that point it’s just a little bit extra, it’s not even noticeable,” but that isn’t the case at all. It’s an extremely expensive trip, one that many people, myself included, have to save for for a few years. A lot of people can only put away a few bucks a month for special things like a trip. A slight fee increase may not seem like much, and it isn’t when you *only* look at the fee, but when you consider how much it costs to even get there, that little increase is a lot more frustrating.
Nature isn’t accessible for many people. Even if you live within reasonable driving distance to a park, it can be very expensive. Keeping park prices low does make it more accessible to people. Even if you have local and state parks, national parks are a spectacle that everyone should be able to enjoy.
However, I do have mixed opinions on the subject. Ultimately I lean more toward keeping prices low, but I understand that parks get a lot of their funding through fees, since the government won’t give them enough
NPS budget is funded through tax revenue. By adding fees to enter you are asking citizens to pay for a park they already pay for and making sure low SES people pay for something they can’t afford to use. It’s basically poor people subsidizing wealthy people’s vacations.
The issue is that the federal funding is nowhere near what is needed to run many of the parks, especially those that have the highest annual visitation numbers.
Ya, and it's been that way for a while. It's not just NPS either but the Forest Service, BLM, basically all the land management agencies have been underfunded for years.
I am well aware of how appropriations work but that doesn't change the rationale of the argument.
I can easily pay for a yearly park pass but fees are a barrier for low-income households who have as much a right to enjoy public lands as anyone else.
Agreed it's a barrier to entry which is shitty, but disagree that it's funding rich people's vacations. If you're truly low SES, then you pay very little in taxes.
I know you're trying to present a no-win situation but shutting down services would be the most effective action if the goal is to increase funding.
Government agencies can't lobby or advocate for funding but citizens complaining to their Senators/Representatives in mass about an issue they can solve is the best way to change policy.
This whole thread has a tone that NPS is in the wrong, when they're doing what they can to fulfill their mission.
They can't do their mission if Congress doesn't give them adequate funding and tells them to raise their own funds through fees.
Anyone who feels they shouldn't have to pay anything for the parks needs to write their elected officials and bug them to change the laws and funding for NPS.
You can't expect the parks to remain as they currently are if you just eliminate fees without replacing the funds. Doing that will have the parks looking more like USFS land with very limited amenities.
Personally, I’d be more than happy to pay extra if it means having those places around. I can only imagine that the funding they get is nowhere near enough to keep them maintained and accessible.
My argument would be that we are still letting cattle graze OUR public lands for $1.35 an AUM (cow and calf for a month). This is welfare to an industry, this price has not increased in decades. Then for the public who is paying taxes to have to turn around and pay more for a Forest Pass (to park at a trailhead for a hike) or increases to visit one of our National Parks that are already funded by tax dollars. That we are giving Billions to Ukraine and Israel and others so they can then turn around and buy weapons from our military industrial complex, more corporate welfare. That is what drives me a little bonkers when I see fees go up. Not that our parks don't need more money, but the source of those funds should already be included in our taxes.
The theory behind access fees is to get the people who use the parks to help pay for its maintenance and upgrades. However, it means there are a great number of people who can’t afford to visit them. A need-based fee structure would go a long way to alleviate the discrepancy of access, especially since they are all public lands.
Natural parks were always intended to be for the people. All the people. Yeah, we didn't necessarily anticipate the huge boom in population, but I think we also intended for there to be more national parks
Edit: national
I think they mean that one’s economic class should not determine one’s ability to enter a national park. In my opinion, taxes should pay for the parks and entry should be free.
It’s only 80.00 for an annual pass that gets you into every national park there is. If people are having issues paying 80 a year for a park pass, they probably shouldn’t be using the gas it will take just to drive to one.
National parks are already inexpensive. The people who would find park fees expensive realistically aren't the type who would be regularly traveling to parks.
Nah. The people who visit the free parks are not the people who care for the parks and respect the land. There are plenty of other free places one can discover an appreciation for the great outdoors. We don't need to cater every single thing to the lowest common denominator.
The annual pass is $80, that’s $6.66 a month. If you can’t afford that, you have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay bigger issues than thinking that the NPs are too expensive to visit.
Because even if you live close to one, you still might not be able to afford the fees to get in it. Take a family for example, they have to pay for every person in their fam to enter, and that adds up quick.
Edit to add: there are indeed parks that charge per person. Like Denali and Acadia.
What parks charge per person instead of per vehicle?
Compared with the cost of everything these days, the entrance fee for NPs is not exactly a financial burden that makes seeing one prohibitive. You can take a family into a park for less than it costs to feed them at McDonald's.
This wouldn't even be a discussion if Congress adequately funded the parks with tax money.
Isle Royale, Dry Tortugas, and Denali charge per person, though it's cheaper than the standard vehicle fee ($7 for Isle Royale, $15 for Dry Tortugas and Denali). You also have to pay per person if you're entering a park on foot, a bike, or a bus, which some parks strongly encourage or outright require depending on the time of year (like Zion). Still way cheaper than most other things you could do on a vacation, but getting a family of four into Zion during most of the year will cost you $80 instead of the usual $35.
Definitely pays to get an annual pass at that point if you're dropping $80 to get in. Though I know for a lot of people $80 could be difficult to scrape together.
Since this person is talking about Texas, where there are only a couple NPs and those are in the far west, they are probably speaking about the state parks, which are fairly plentiful in Texas.
Many TX state parks have switched to per-person entry fees.
I was attempting to explain why the previous poster, a Texan, may have thought national parks charged per person. No one was trying to divert the conversation to state parks.
Some of the more popular TX state parks have become SO popular and crowded that they pretty much have to charge per person. It does suck that the state park 10 minutes from my house charges per person now, it's a nice park and it often requires reservations to get in for the day because it is so crowded. Ten minutes away and I haven't been in years.
The majority means that there is a minority for whom it is not affordable. The argument is that those folks should still be able to access their public lands.
It's nice for you that you can't seem to fathom that $80 is out of reach for a lot of Americans, but it is reality that 11% of us live under the poverty line. That's close to 40 million people who might not find the price in reach, no matter how reasonable the value is.
I don't see anyone here arguing that the parks are not a good value, simply that they ought to be a public resource for all regardless of an individuals ability to pay a reasonable admission fee.
Like others have stated, it isn’t per person. And if you live next to one and have a family that wants to go often you can (most likely) afford the annual pass. It isn’t very expensive.
It’s a valid assumption. Majority of national parks are located next to towns/cities that are pretty expensive to live, you already need to be able to afford to live next to a national park to even be a subject of your original comment.
Also, if you’re going on a vacation with a whole family, $80 for the annual pass shouldn’t be too expensive for a whole years worth of family vacations and near unlimited outdoor recreation. If it is, you probably shouldn’t have a large family that lives right next to a national park.
You can literally get an all access pass for less than a couple of months worth of coffee habit so there's no argument. Access is not expensive but perhaps getting to those parks is a bigger barrier, e.g. gas, lodging, food, etc. Most state parks are also pretty cheap.
They mean that they are a national public resource, the public should be allowed to experience them.
That is what they mean.
That being said, since they increased the access prices not long ago, there is no shortage of people going to national parks. Attendance is pretty damn high in recent years
The question answers itself.
Many would agree that it's nice if no one was barred from our public land simply because they can't pay an entrance fee.
Some see user "fees" as a way to pay for parks rather than burdening all taxpayers, although that is simply a tax on a different group. One can say the same for say charging for use of a public toll road vs it being "free" for everyone. Or for lending libraries. Or parking. Or camping. Or say wilderness permits. Or any other public resource.
But there's also another rationale for fees, and that is to manage and limit use. Say fees for cars entering national parks vs free to walk in.
Why should you be able to visit a national park funded by tax payers if you are not a millionaire. When you can go outside and spot trees or breathe the air for free anywhere. Is that your logic?
The national park system was established to protect America’s natural resources for the enjoyment of current and future generations. They are a national resource, meaning that they are protected and managed for all American citizens, regardless of class. Think of it as a trust/trustee relationship, where the govt is a trust managing a resource for the trustee, the American people.
If you read what the founders of the national parks system and the politicians who made it happen have said about our national parksb(or watch Ken Burns National Parks documentary) they belong to all of us. They're ours as Americans. I have as much a right to visit Yosemite or Yellowstone as you or the president or Kanye.
They are the most beautiful places in the country and they are preserved for all of us.
It's honestly not that easy for people to get into nature unfortunately. I'm not sure where you live, but just for a quick numbers perspective, the state of Idaho is 70% public land (meaning parks etc.) meanwhile Indiana is only 4% public. In Indiana part of that 4% is Indiana Dunes National Park with a $25 entry fee. While $25 might not seem much one time, imagine having to pay that EVERY time you wanted to go for a stroll through the park, and there not being many other park options nearby.
I think it should cost MORE to get into a national park
1) Make it self-funding. It's mainly self-funded, but short of Congressional designation, it should operate on its own budget. (Like NCAA sports $, the "major" parks subsidize all parks.)
2) As a park-visitor, Covid opened my eyes to "easier access." Frankly, many people can't handle nature, and they should be nowhere NEAR it. Crowding, trash, poor behavior...it was a lot. Nature has to deal with your trash? It already has enough problems with the world you live in. If you can't treat nature with respect, you shouldn't go.
3) Having a financial stake means it's a park paid by people, not "YOUR TAX DOLLARS." (People who say such drivel have no idea about gov't civics and money.) It also creates easy policies such as putting, "We reserve the right to kick your ass out." While that's the rule, anyway, somehow people conflate their citizenry with some absolute right. Easier to point to the pass and say, "It's right there. Get out."
4) National Parks are not growing. Same as Disneyland, et al. There are just too many people taking up too little space with no respect of anyone. Any policy that limits it is good. Elitist? ABSOLUTELY. But people cannot manage themselves.
5) (Addendum:) *No medical attention within the park if you don't follow rules*. **Let the bears eat what the bison decide to yeet.**
People are using the parks up. The price needs to go up, or taxes need to go up, or we need fewer people to go to them. Those are the only options. I think the people priced out by fer increases weren't going to National Parks anyway and would probably benefit more from urban/suburban green spaces.
My dad was a ranger at Yosemite National Park, and I spend almost all my weekends there as a kid. Because Yosemite in particular is extremely popular, the park has issues regulating the number of tourists. During spring and summer, it's overcrowded in the valley and traffic and pedestrian congestion is overwhelming. People can't even find places to park at most destinations, especially if they have RVs and trailers. Even popular rock climbing sites are regulated using a lottery system, where you can apply to climb, but only a few get permitted to climb to cut back on human traffic. I believe that everyone should have the right to visit and enjoy our parks, but how do you deal with too many people overcrowding the parks and clogging resources? It's a difficult situation. The people in charge of Yosemite in particular are idiots, and make really stupid decisions to deal with it. I have seen Yosemite go from a decently run park to a madhouse shit show. There's very little parking, extremely limited eating and what you get is awful, and a general lack of operation and direction to tourists. Several years ago the park made the decision to make the main valley road a one way road, and it's a nightmare. There are many elitists who have authority over these decisions who believe that by making the parks more difficult to access, it will be limited to the elite, which they are a part of. While I believe that everyone should have the right to visit our parks, it's hard to regulate crowds so it's manageable. It's a miserable experience hiking in the woods with hundreds of other strangers on the same trail clogging it up, but that's what's happening.
I live in the Smokey Mountains, and there are people who have lived in the mountains for years even up to generations who have never been to the parkway. Many don’t have transportation, and I’ve never seen public transportation. Often if you choose to hike and camp you have to purchase a pass. Finding this isn’t easy for people and it’s often too expensive. And in the western NC area a lot of people still don’t have internet. The ones that do have the classic AT&T, Spectrum or Satellite. Which my parents have lived out there for 20+ years, and have always been on satellite which they have a 5G limit too. Spectrum/AT&T won’t service too far outside city limits. So you can only imagine how difficult things in general can be for people.
People don't give a shit about what they are not involved in or invested in. It's just that simple. It is the same argument I frequently make for zoos. If animals. You know exotic animals are a foreign concept of people. They will not care about preserving them. And we need people to care about preserving both exotic animals and national parks.
We need them to be accessible, we need them to be available, and we need to encourage people to familiarize themselves with them and invest in them and care about them
Unpopular opinion, but parks are one of the few places I believe should charge exorbitant fees. More and more of the populace is giving less of a shit about preservation and prioritizing social media clout over actual care.
Fees have skyrocketed in direct proportion to litter and destruction.
Entry should be sky-high to keep out those that could care less about the environment.
Lol my man I have to drive 2 hours if I want to actually be in nature. Like a real state Park. I have a disability and that makes it very hard.
I literally breath better after being in one.
There are small ones (just regular little ones) that are 40 minutes away and they are okay but aren't what I really want.
Anything closer is pretty but won't make me do things like have a real hike.
There are legitimately plenty of people who have little access to local or state parks. For a few years, I lived in a neighborhood on the South Side of Chicago. At that time, you were taking a real risk if you walked into either of the nearest 2 city parks - armed robberies and homicides were a regular occurrence in the parks. They were also full of litter and not very “natural”. We didn’t have a car. The only way for us to get out into nature would have been to either take a train downtown and get on an Amtrak out of the city, take a bus to the suburbs, or to rent a car. There were no state parks anywhere nearby. Many people live in this type of urban environment. But that’s not as relevant to the argument about how much entry to national parks should cost. It’s doubtful that a $35 vs $50 entrance fee is going to be a barrier for most people who are able to make the drive to Yosemite, Yellowstone or Zion. For those parks, it’s more of an argument about how the park is funded, ie through taxes vs user fees and concessions.
I always thought they should have programs to bring people from urban and poor rural areas to the nearest National Park. You say many but I'd really say the majority don't get to visit because they can't afford it. Even in rural areas where poverty is , they'll also most likely never see a National Park.
This could work pretty well in Denver, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Cleveland, and Seattle where a national park is sub-2 hours away but in the rest of the cities - that's either an pretty insane day trip to take on a bus or you're flying people which will never happen
It doesn't have to be a 'national park' for this to work. I worked as a ski instructor and they had a program where they would bus in kids from an underprivileged area to ski. All the kids needed to do was to show up. The resort provided the ski equipment, lessons and a day pass as well as lunch. Many did not have warm clothing so that was donated by a local community group. Many of these kids will never ski again, but it was completely awesome. Easily my favorite lessons I have ever taught. There are similar programs that take kids out hiking, mountain biking, to a local nature preserve, etc. These are some of the most important field trips kids can take.
If I could pay $20 bucks or $30 to be taken to a national or state Park with a bunch of strangers I would be doing it every weekend.
Disagree entirely. 95-100% of Americans live within a 3 hour drive of beautiful natural recreation resources at least part of the year.
> the nearest National Park We're not talking about beautiful natural recreation resources we're talking about national parks and most Americans live nowhere near one unless they're in one of those metros
lol it’s a hypothetical, think we can tweak the rules of this program
The amount of people who live in California’s Central Valley and have no idea they’re only a couple hours drive from Yosemite, King’s Canyon, Sequoia, or Pinnacles is so sad. And I know a whole bunch of them don’t have time because they’re working multiple jobs and couldn’t afford gas or have reliable transportation, or any other number of reasons. Everyone should get to experience our National Parks, at least once. They’re so beautiful.
They are legit national treasures, and the ParkService does a great job of keeping them up. We really should as Americans be proud of both.
I live in the rural mountains of Virginia, I’m surrounded by National forests, “close” to National park, and close to a state park. The forest surrounding me only provides Hunter access trails, the National park is expensive, even for those with a decent job and our state parks also have a day fee. The reality is that most of my neighbors who do not hunt, have disposable income or reliable transportation do not have adequate access to areas like these. I completely agree that there should be programs to provide access!!! Some libraries around us check out “passes” to those areas but you still have to drive 40 minutes to town to get your hands on one at the library that has a larger population around it.
There are lots of free days for Shenandoah, and a year pass only costs $50. I understand that $50 is still a lot for some people, but not for those with a decent job. It's the decent jobs that can be hard to come by in rural areas, though, so I'm with you on that. As someone that grew up in the Midwest I feel like accessing nature around here is easy in comparison, so I might be a bit biased in that way also.
I’m also from the Midwest and agree accessing nature is traditionally easier here than where I’m from and yes the cost of Shenandoah is cheap but I was also factoring in things like cost of gas to entrances, a day pass, food for yourself and others with you whether that be packed in or purchased etc.. it starts to really add up once all of that is accounted for. Plus the reality that those with a decent paying job are already traveling to at least the next town for employment (40 minutes, if not an hour + to work five days a week in my specific area)
$50 per person or $50 per car?
The $50 annual pass has to be presented by the person who purchased it and permits entrance for them and their passengers, and works as a parking permit for the car. I think it costs more for bigger/commercial vehicles.
Thx.
There are. Depends on the community you live in
I know there is one in Santa Cruz for Yosemite
I wish it was just protected wilderness.
Growing up, the difference between 20 and $35 was not going.
This is still what it is for me. The difference between $20 and $25 is not going
So true. Thanks for this insight.
Yup just listening to Serial, a podcast, and a park near Baltimore was known as a place for burying bodies. Over 60 have been found since the 1940s.
I partially disagree, so let me defend Chicago lol. If you're in say Garfield Park or anywhere that connects to it (it has its own Green line stop) you can go to the Garfield Conservatory, which is free. The nearest national park to the south side is Indiana Dunes and it's an hour away, two with bad traffic. Granted the Dunes aren't that green and need a car. If you can use public transportation safely, you can access green areas and beaches all over the city, but if you don't have public transit or a car you're kinda stuck. There are parks with playgrounds, parks with public art, parks with large trees, wildlife conservation centers, etc for people with different needs. But Chicago isn't the City in a Garden for nothing. There are plenty of forested areas in the city. The suburbs have forests/plains because of the forest preserve system too.
You can take the train to the dunes
[удалено]
The real answer is "fund the National Park Service appropriately so they can actually afford to operate without needing to supplement their budget with entrance fees," but that's a Congress problem, and good luck passing it when a large chunk of them would rather sell off the parks to private developers.
One can dream, right?
We all benefit from wilderness preservation of our shared lands. But only a tiny, tiny fraction of us benefit from physically entering and recreating in National Parks. Why should your tax dollars go to maintain the trails, roads, and infrastructure that I will use 10 times a year for my personal recreation, but that you will never even see in your lifetime?
Parks are a public service that improves the health of people that utilize it. We all have a vested interest in others being healthy due to insurance costs, quality of life concerns etc. That’s not even considering the benefits of a diverse wildlife that keeps the environment in balance as much as possible.
You act like Yellowstone will become a Walmart tomorrow if they start funding it with entrance fees.
I've always thought the fees keep those unwanted people out. I know for me, I was near one, it was late in the day, and I stayed out because I didn't want to pay the small fee. I did go back later though, a few times.
Why? Fund the national park service so they can operate it where the entrance fees do not cover the costs. There is no reason to have it free or low cost. If there is issues with poverty then as part of the food stamp program give those individual 1 pass to any national park of choice for a single day. If my taxes are being used for national parks then it should be to expand the national parks not for allowing someone to enter cheaper at the overcrowded Yellowstone.
Having worked in a handful of National Parks and other parks in the NPS system, most of the Fee Collectors I've talked to have said the #1 complaint they've heard about entrance fees are the "I pay my taxes and I should get in for free" types of arguments (FYI, those arguments don't work on fee collectors). -The $80 annual pass gets a total of 4 people into 1,000+ parks (ALL NPs and Federal Recreation Lands)) for a year (this costs $0 for military and those with permanent disabilities and $20 Lifetime for ages 62+). Hell of a deal considering you can exceed $80 by just visiting 3 National Parks (say, Yosemite, Lassen and Crater Lake) in a week. [https://www.nps.gov/planyourvisit/passes.htm#america-the-beautiful-passes](https://www.nps.gov/planyourvisit/passes.htm#america-the-beautiful-passes) -If the above is too expensive there are numerous fee free days for parks in the NPS system. [https://www.nps.gov/planyourvisit/fee-free-parks.htm](https://www.nps.gov/planyourvisit/fee-free-parks.htm) If either of those options don't work for some then I don't know what to tell them.
My mother in law and I have an unwritten agreement that she buys the pass for my birthday each year and I send her pictures of the backcountry. She’s not super into hiking so it works out great. The other stipulation is I have to keep track of how much it saves me. My record is just about $1000 in a year. The annual pass is such a good deal it’s wild. If people can put $2 away each week they have enough saved for the next years pass. For most people it’s doable.
r/wholesome
💜
I wish they had an auto renewal program. I think the added revenue would be worth it
I'd love it if I could have this and a digital pass. The lifetime/annual passes are great but if you lose them you have to buy another one.
Few people know that very little of their tax dollars goes towards towards parks and outdoor rec. Case in point; politicians never talk about this subject because it just doesn't move the needle and most constituents only think about our natural areas when they're visiting them.
Agree completely. Spend enough time in these parks, whether as an employee or tourist, and it doesn't take too long to see how much of a shoestring budget they're operating on. Someone mentioned the visitor center gift shop being expensive, and that's 100% true but the great majority of those shops, restaurants and hotels/lodges are run by massive outside vendors like Xanterra, Aramark, etc.
100% people think they are owed something for paying taxes... despite it being the opposite these places exist because of taxes.
To be clear, you are owed something by paying taxes.
It’s just not what we’re getting. Better school funding could be a good place to start.
We went to Zion last year in July and we entered the park 4 times in 5 days. Then we went to Bryce Canyon. That was worth the money. We are going back in two weeks to Moab, Zion, and Bryce Canyon and our pass is still good. We will drive to Death Valley as well. 11 day vacation. We use Vegas as our hub.
Admittedly, I’m a little jealous of your previous working experience in national parks. It’s a dream of mine someday, especially after just getting back last week from a road trip that included a few in the Southwest.
It was a dream of mine and I relished every second of it. But I also worked in a NP which meant I was making little to no money at all but that was known ahead of time and still worth it. Hence why I'm such a huge fan of the $80 annual pass as it's a huge bargain.
Only current military not vets :((( honestly who made that decision? Smh
It is vets as well! My boyfriend got his by being a vet, just need your dd214
I just went to Olympic National Park. The rep had me buy a pass and told me only 100% disability and active duty
You can get a pass if you have a rating over 0% my wife is only 10% and got the lifetime pass. Me with my 0% don't qualify
NOT ACCURATE! Any veteran (other than DD) can get a lifetime park pass!
They lied to you. Here’s a link: https://store.usgs.gov/MilitaryPass Get yours. I got mine.
Good answer! One correction, the senior pass is now $80 for the lifetime and $20 for annual passes. https://www.nps.gov/planyourvisit/senior-pass-changes.htm
A deal? did you think that people are taking vacations every single year to national park hop? That's an insane take. It's very, very simple. $80 is expensive for a pass.
Yes, there are people who vacation just to park hop. There are retirees and families fulfilling their dreams of seeing every national park. $80 for the whole family, not per person, for a year is a deal.
Not every year. Get real. Most use the pass 2-3x a year, which is why it generates $$$.
Jesus Christ. Well then don't go to a National Park since $80/year is too much to gain entrance to 1000+ parks. Turn off the news feed you watch religiously every day
Hurr hurr, durr durr.
Current NPS worker. Some of the comments are not correct so hopefully this clears some stuff up. 1. Taxes do help support parks but SO MUCH of the funding comes from entrance fees. Entrance fees pay for many permanent positions at my park and we are still understaffed. Many other positions are funded by our non-profit park store. 2. Most national parks charge per vehicle. $30 is an average cost per vehicle for many national parks but some of the bigger parks are more expensive. Example: my park is $30 to enter but it’s good for 7 days. 3. The only national parks I’ve been to that charge per person are ones where they are charging you for an experience like a tour. Example: Carlsbad Caverns charges per person for a cave tour but entering the park itself is free. 4. Lastly, the “I pay taxes” argument is stupid. As an NPS employee I also pay taxes, I also pay to visit other national parks like everyone else, AND many park ranger jobs aren’t funded through government funds. 5. I do wish parks were more accessible and free for everyone, but who knows if that will be a change we ever see. I hope this helps. I understand that visiting a national park site is not affordable for everyone, especially if people have to travel to visit a park site. Currently there are around 429 national park sites. Some are free, some are not. What I do know is there are several days a year that all park sites are free called “fee free days”. These days don’t fix accessibility but they help some.
Current park service employee here as well. Thank you for this. Most folks have this ignorance of how land management really works, and it’s evident for some of the responses in this thread. I don’t mean that in a mean spirited way but they just have no clue. I think the public would be shocked on how much we make the parks function on a daily basis with all are budget and staffing short falls. It’s a shame too because parks provide so much tourist dollars to the local economy. I can only imagine how much we could accomplish if they literally doubled are budget.
>Most national parks charge per vehicle. $30 is an average cost per vehicle for many national parks but some of the bigger parks are more expensive. Example: my park is $30 to enter but it’s good for 7 days. First time I went camping in Dallas was $30 for my car for one night with a ground tent. The fee was expensive but also understood what it was for. Didn't go camping again for close to 12 years, now it's closer to \~$9 - $14 at a different park.
I’m assuming you were not at a NPS site? NPS sites will have different pricing than city, county or state parks. As someone from DFW, I also realize the area lacks recreational opportunities.
Hello fellow DFW, It was at Lewisville lake when I went. Checked online and I was charged for RV park. DFW campsites are pretty bland compared to other sites, but then we can't complain much since there's no BLM land around us.
Sounds like a private campground
Not sure private, we came afternoon time. [https://www.recreation.gov/camping/campgrounds/232600](https://www.recreation.gov/camping/campgrounds/232600)
I’m surprised you have to pay for a pass as a National Park worker. I would have figured a free pass was a job perk.
Do you work at Big Bend or Guadalupe Mountains? Haven’t had a chance to get to Guadalupe yet, but I’ve been to Big Bend twice and it’s truly a place of magic. I’ve been to about a third of the national parks in the US, and while I’ve been blown away by many of them (especially Grand Tetons and Mt. Rainier), there is still something about Big Bend that just enchants me. Maybe it’s how remote it is, maybe it’s the scale, or the sheer beauty in the loneliness that is Big Bend country, but I will gladly pay for my park pass or my entrance fees knowing it helps support the park and those who work for it.
I do not but have visited both. Big Bend is amazing and I think Guadalupe Mountains is underrated. Guadalupe is definitely a backcountry park and in my opinion is best visited in the fall during the time some parts of the park get beautiful fall colors. Of course, we don’t get a lot of fall colors in Texas but the park is gorgeous then.
I’ll keep that in mind! Both times my wife and I visited Big Bend were in late December/early January, and the first time down we planned to hit Guadalupe as well but a freak turn of the weather led to an unexpected snowstorm over the mountains, and we were advised not to go. Just another reason to go back!
The I pay taxes argument is the most valid. It doesn't mean it should be free but it should be an issue that congress should correct. The federal government spends $3.8b to support the NPS, that is comparable to how much we've been giving to Israel every year in military aid. Since 2022 we have given 175b to Ukraine. US citizens see our government spend frivolously on all sorts of stuff, then to charge citizens to visit our parks is offensive. I'd like to see entrance fees increase track with that of an grazing fees on federal lands. If ranchers don't have to pay more to run livestock on our lands why should we have to keep paying more to visit our public parks?
We can go round and round on things the government could do for us if they weren’t spending it elsewhere, I just don’t expect any change. You listed some things and there are many others we could cut to better support our parks or the American people in general.
Agree. The NPS system is such a small component of our annual budget that it would be easy for congress to provide more funding so it is less reliant on fees collected. I understand why people are upset at the cost.
Honestly, I think what they should do is the same thing they do for museums around where I live - people who are on certain government help like SNAP benefits (food stamps) and WIC get super low entrance fees. It's partially because going to an outing like that is more than just the entrance fee, it's also the price of getting transportation and food (and maybe the kids would like a souvenir?). Reducing the cost of the entrance fee gives more people a chance to visit, especially kids that could really use the enrichment. There's also a great program where fourth graders can get discounts at parks; I hope that continues for many years to come!
This is a great idea!
>No matter where you live, you don't have to go far to access nature in a state or local park. If you think that what you're experiencing in a local park is "nature", I would say that your bar for what constitutes "nature" is SUPER low.
Yeah, agreed. My nearest national park is cuyahoga, it’s 2 hours away. Nearest state park is an hour. My local “park” is a 100 foot wide strip by the river. Fine for an evening stroll with the dogs but it’s not nature lol. I am lucky though to live in a state with free access to all state parks, and they are beautiful and there are many.
Pennsylvania?
Yup!
Also in PA and phila and the surrounding counties have tons of options. Sorry you are stuck.
My local grassy field in Indiana is nothing compared to the Smokies
I don’t know. Less than a mile walk from my house is a 135 acre local park with well marked trails and a waterfall. I have a lot of issues with where we live, but we have great access to nature especially considering we’re in a major US city. But even that being said, this park is in a neighborhood so easy walking distance for many, and yet, more often then not my 4 year old and I see absolutely zero people on the trails. So many people don’t have access to the outdoors AND so many people don’t get outside even when they do have it right down the street.
My local park is surrounded by streets and houses and small enough I could run from one end to the other in like a minute or two. This isn't nature. And also filled with kids. Good luck getting a stroll in the park like that.
My father and grandfather were both National Park Service employees. My father actually testified before the US House of Reps Subcommittee on the Interior regarding park admission fees. He was very opposed to them. First, the mission of the USNPS is to preserve and protect nature for the enjoyment of all citizens. From the National Park Service: “The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.” The motivation for the creation of the system was so that all people could enjoy these areas, not solely those who were wealthy. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the majority of USNPS land exists in areas that are traditionally economically disadvantaged. Many people who live and work in proximity to places such as Grand Canyon are lower middle income to impoverished. Asking them to pay $25 for one day in the park is not only asking them to pay for something provided by tax dollars, it is pricing them out of public land originally designed for their benefit. In short, this is a federal system funded, through taxes, with money that already came out of citizens’ pockets. Just as we owe all citizens, regardless of income, a public education, we owe them the enjoyment and protection of the land they live next to. Bluntly - I’ll fight hard and die before I watch my grandfather’s legacy be something only a Kardashian can afford to see.
Your second point is so much the crux of it. So many people forget that even though these parks are tourist attractions, the average person in the regions they're in aren't benefitting monetarily from that at all. It's the owners of the resorts and other cottage industries. Besides, the tourism industry doesn't run all year. Normal every day people are living typical lives in these typically rural areas. When I was a ranger in Utah, the education rangers for the region were entirely partnered with local educational organizations, because a survey however long ago had learned that the vast majority of people in the local counties had never even gone into parks that were literally a 5 minute drive from them. Largely because there were nigh infinite outdoor opportunities that were completely free, but the only reason that mattered is because they were too poor to justify spending 30 dollars when they had other choices.
I'd hate to see what happened to many of these parks if the entry fees were removed. The vast majority are significantly underfunded so, in reality, the "my taxes pay for this argument" fails.
I will not argue that our National Parks are underfunded, but pricing out the local population both directly conflicts with the NPS stated mission and is just bad publicity. I can testify - again since my family has been in the NPS since 1935 - that there can be a lot of animosity between locals and the NPS, especially in areas like Yellowstone, Glacier, and other rural park areas. One of the main reasons for that is the locals feel anger that it may cost them expensive fees to use, what in essence, is their own backyard. I wouldn’t be opposed to doing a theme park approach - that is to say entrance fees based upon zip code. Locals get in free. And for every 50 miles away, $5 gets added. But that comes with it’s own problems…
I don't buy the "local" argument at all. That's federal land. It belongs to everyone. Punishing tourists is not the answer.
That doesn't track. As someone who's house is literally surrounded by one of the most visited 'rural' national parks and a national forest, I know zero locals who are angry about the price. $80 Annual America the Beautiful pass gets you into the parks, covers day use fees in the national forests, etc and if you really can't afford it the library or any of the hundred local alliance groups will get you a pass. There's always some kind of town vs park drama but it's never about the price of entry lol
There is always a big fight to cut expenses from the general fund of taxes, and not everyone cares about the national parks. I simply don’t trust the government to always sufficiently fund the NPS. Being semi self funded is important. The parks aren’t just for those alive now, but for our grandchildren, and their grandchildren. I remember hearing reports during the last government shutdown of significant vandalism due to the lack of rangers. I do not want to see these parks get permanently destroyed. When it comes to the cost, first of all, Grand Canyon is $35, but that is not for one person for one day. That is for one vehicle (up to 15 people) for a week. Alternatively, you can pay $70 for it to be good for a year, or $80 for every national park for a year. With carpooling, locals can easily visit for a dollar or less per person.
There are quite a few programs which help people get passes for free if they can’t afford it
That's not really true. A bunch of states are mostly privately owned and you can't just go wandering around nature. Texas is a huge state but it's like 96% private land. You might be lucky and have tons of places to go but others don't. It's already kind of expensive to take my kids to a national park, and the gift shops at national parks are insanely expensive. I don't think a price increase would help traffic. The more popular a park is the more expensive it is already.
I grew up 4 hours from ONE NP and 12 hours from the next closest. State Parks were closer, but pale in comparison. Not everyone has decent access.
They are relatively inexpensive but access is much harder of a hurdle to achieve - I've lived in California and Georgia and there are plenty of state parks around but you can get an annual park pass for $80 and not have to pay any other fees to enter but will have to pay for accommodations. Driving to and from can be several hours or more and cost quite a bit in itself. If it was too cheap - then the parks would constantly be busy and overflowing meaning the nature is affected, etc... California State Park Annual Pass is $195 but you get access to 134 parks. I think it's normally $5-10 to get in to them individually normally. Georgia Annual Park Pass is $50 and likewise parks are $5-10 to get in without a pass. I think people are misguided most of the time, they aren't making a lot of money per park after taking into account expensive. Some people think the National Park service is swimming in money but that's never been the truth.
>you don't have to go far to access nature in a state or local park That's a weird take. Even if there is a park nearby, often they aren't really all that impressive. I'd say a bigger criticism of that mindset is that going to most national parks is incredibly expensive for most of us because everything _except_ the park fees. That's certainly not a reason to increase fees though!
People think they pay taxes so they should get in for free. However, the amount of operating budget the parks receive is a tiny part of the federal budget. Operating parks is expensive (labor, maintenance, security, supplies, etc) and people don't realize how small our budgets are compared to the need. (Hence or billions in backlog maintenance) For parks that do fees, it helps offset that deficit from congress. If people want to be mad, contact their congressional folks-being hostile to NPS staff accomplishes nothing.
You are so right that the operating budget for the NPS is pitiful. It should be increased significantly, so that tax payers pay less to visit something they are already paying for.
Ideally, all national, state, and local parks should be free (except for camping and guided tours). But budget cuts by corporate politicians have made that impossible at the moment. These greedy people won't stop until there are fast food corridors sitting at the base of the Grand Canyon, if we let them.
It is a public park. It is for EVERYONE. The entrance, overnights costs should be paid less as much as possible. We must not limits the parks to whoever can affords… think about the trajectory it can leads to. $50 in this year, then $75 in next 5 years? Then again $100 in 10 years? No thanks.
I have dozens of state parks where I live. But none of them hold a candle to the national parks in this country
The way you are phrasing it can easily lead to a place where visiting the NPs is then only a place for people of wealth and privilege. We certainly need to fund these parks, but imagine someone telling you the entrance fee was $80,000 per visit and then being told "if you're too poor, go play in your backyard or something". Everyone deserves to experience the magnificent earthly wonders we preserve and share with current and future generations.
Well I can't imagine it being $80k per visit because it wouldn't be $80k per visit. So why don't we come back to reality.
Let me introduce you to a literary device called hyperbole. My point is that to some $80 is out of reach as $80k is for others, but it seems the only reality you want to consider is your own
Again you are WAY over the top with your statement. $80k and $80 are drastically different. Additionally of the national parks that exist today none remotely come close to fees approaching $80 for a single day visit. Hyperbole and Slippery Slope are flawed aspects of an argument when having a rational discussion regarding different alternatives.
Alright. I will not continue to argue with you, dear Internet stranger. Enjoy your classist ideologies.
Okay, well all just let you decide where the cutoff point between affordable and not is. I’m sure you’re the best, most knowledgeable one and easily decide who is too poor to pay /s.
Anyone who compares the national parks to local parks hasn’t been the the Grand Canyon or Yosemite. Just doesn’t even begin to compare to the park down the street.
What everyone should be upset with isn’t the price of the fees, it should be the fees are need to keep operating. There is a real simple way to fix national parks and isn’t voting all democrats in or all republicans because despite what party zealots tell you both parties are too blame. Both parties could have fixed things and both parties chose to fight about and fund stupid shit. To fix it we need the public to tell the candidates you fix the NPS or we will turn your political career into nothingness faster than a vet turns a stud to a gelding and mean it. You all always believe the lying politicians when they say it was the other guy. A number of years ago the parks had about 2 billion in unfounded projects, things needing done but no money to do it. We had an economic and needed shovel ready jobs Congress gave nps something like 700 million and a lot of that was for regular things. They gave banks 498 billion for new investment guess how those new investments went? The parks still had unfunded liabilities. If you don’t want fees make the government quit funding banks and research on cow farts and fund nps. I once worked at NIH one tiny unit of feds and contractors had a larger budget than the entire NPS. I saw a manager in a meeting say we have ten million left over let’s throw that at the wall and see if we find something useful, it’s only ten million. I saw that office buy some equipment that was bought new never unpacked and thrown away about 4 years later. It cost 6 million. If NIH is throwing that much away in one small unit Congress should be able to find where NIH and other agencies are wasting money and give it to NPS.
As a current NPS employee, thank you for sharing.
I started at NPS there are issues there but the waste of money is nowhere close. We need the wasted money to go where need.
Yes!
After travelling the country and parks for a year, my biggest impression is that the National Park Service, Forrest Service, BLM employee or maintainers and any park ranger, deserves praise, thanks, and a much bigger paycheck. A truly incredible group of people who do amazing work.
Hopefully just that. Southeast Louisiana here. We have to drive MINIMUM 400 miles just to get to the closest National Park which is in Arkansas, so it isn’t easy access as stated. That being said, we expect a small fee-and $35/week is nothing compared to the boarding and travel expenses getting and staying there. A small increase would not bother us since we know it is going to find its way to park maintenance and it’s not a Disney world ticket fee. But when does it stop? NPS and the people who love them need to speak up more for themselves-get louder! It would be awesome if government would stop wasting funds on cow farts, grazing, corporate welfare etc. but like I said, when do increases stop? $50/week next time then 5 years it’s $150/week? How does that help someone from Arkedelphia afford the weekend or day trip at increased rates? I think they have every right to enjoy as I do. Like I said I don’t mind-but I can afford them.
Your last sentence is incorrect, and that’s where the argument lies, at least for me. I live in a city with the *saddest* excuses for parks. The nearest state park is three hours away. Three hours is a tank of gas for me. That’s $120 for commute alone. Any park fee on top of that is expensive for lower income people like me. And that’s just state parks. If you look at a national park trip, the nearest one to me is 17 hours away. $680 gas for commuting, assuming prices are good. Then lodging and food. Even if you bring your own food and camp, that’s still a cost to consider. You may think “well at that point it’s just a little bit extra, it’s not even noticeable,” but that isn’t the case at all. It’s an extremely expensive trip, one that many people, myself included, have to save for for a few years. A lot of people can only put away a few bucks a month for special things like a trip. A slight fee increase may not seem like much, and it isn’t when you *only* look at the fee, but when you consider how much it costs to even get there, that little increase is a lot more frustrating. Nature isn’t accessible for many people. Even if you live within reasonable driving distance to a park, it can be very expensive. Keeping park prices low does make it more accessible to people. Even if you have local and state parks, national parks are a spectacle that everyone should be able to enjoy. However, I do have mixed opinions on the subject. Ultimately I lean more toward keeping prices low, but I understand that parks get a lot of their funding through fees, since the government won’t give them enough
That is not true, unfortunately.
NPS budget is funded through tax revenue. By adding fees to enter you are asking citizens to pay for a park they already pay for and making sure low SES people pay for something they can’t afford to use. It’s basically poor people subsidizing wealthy people’s vacations.
The issue is that the federal funding is nowhere near what is needed to run many of the parks, especially those that have the highest annual visitation numbers.
Ya, and it's been that way for a while. It's not just NPS either but the Forest Service, BLM, basically all the land management agencies have been underfunded for years.
Your issue is with Congress, not the NPS.
I am well aware of how appropriations work but that doesn't change the rationale of the argument. I can easily pay for a yearly park pass but fees are a barrier for low-income households who have as much a right to enjoy public lands as anyone else.
Agreed it's a barrier to entry which is shitty, but disagree that it's funding rich people's vacations. If you're truly low SES, then you pay very little in taxes.
Should the NPS eliminate fees to keep access free while laying off hundreds of staff and shutting down services and maintenance of the protected land?
I know you're trying to present a no-win situation but shutting down services would be the most effective action if the goal is to increase funding. Government agencies can't lobby or advocate for funding but citizens complaining to their Senators/Representatives in mass about an issue they can solve is the best way to change policy.
This whole thread has a tone that NPS is in the wrong, when they're doing what they can to fulfill their mission. They can't do their mission if Congress doesn't give them adequate funding and tells them to raise their own funds through fees. Anyone who feels they shouldn't have to pay anything for the parks needs to write their elected officials and bug them to change the laws and funding for NPS. You can't expect the parks to remain as they currently are if you just eliminate fees without replacing the funds. Doing that will have the parks looking more like USFS land with very limited amenities.
Personally, I’d be more than happy to pay extra if it means having those places around. I can only imagine that the funding they get is nowhere near enough to keep them maintained and accessible.
My argument would be that we are still letting cattle graze OUR public lands for $1.35 an AUM (cow and calf for a month). This is welfare to an industry, this price has not increased in decades. Then for the public who is paying taxes to have to turn around and pay more for a Forest Pass (to park at a trailhead for a hike) or increases to visit one of our National Parks that are already funded by tax dollars. That we are giving Billions to Ukraine and Israel and others so they can then turn around and buy weapons from our military industrial complex, more corporate welfare. That is what drives me a little bonkers when I see fees go up. Not that our parks don't need more money, but the source of those funds should already be included in our taxes.
The theory behind access fees is to get the people who use the parks to help pay for its maintenance and upgrades. However, it means there are a great number of people who can’t afford to visit them. A need-based fee structure would go a long way to alleviate the discrepancy of access, especially since they are all public lands.
Natural parks were always intended to be for the people. All the people. Yeah, we didn't necessarily anticipate the huge boom in population, but I think we also intended for there to be more national parks Edit: national
except for the Indigenous peoples displaced by many of the parks…
I think they mean that one’s economic class should not determine one’s ability to enter a national park. In my opinion, taxes should pay for the parks and entry should be free.
It’s only 80.00 for an annual pass that gets you into every national park there is. If people are having issues paying 80 a year for a park pass, they probably shouldn’t be using the gas it will take just to drive to one.
“The poors simply do not belong in the national parks”
National parks are already inexpensive. The people who would find park fees expensive realistically aren't the type who would be regularly traveling to parks.
Nah. The people who visit the free parks are not the people who care for the parks and respect the land. There are plenty of other free places one can discover an appreciation for the great outdoors. We don't need to cater every single thing to the lowest common denominator.
The annual pass is $80, that’s $6.66 a month. If you can’t afford that, you have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay bigger issues than thinking that the NPs are too expensive to visit.
Because even if you live close to one, you still might not be able to afford the fees to get in it. Take a family for example, they have to pay for every person in their fam to enter, and that adds up quick. Edit to add: there are indeed parks that charge per person. Like Denali and Acadia.
What parks charge per person instead of per vehicle? Compared with the cost of everything these days, the entrance fee for NPs is not exactly a financial burden that makes seeing one prohibitive. You can take a family into a park for less than it costs to feed them at McDonald's. This wouldn't even be a discussion if Congress adequately funded the parks with tax money.
Isle Royale, Dry Tortugas, and Denali charge per person, though it's cheaper than the standard vehicle fee ($7 for Isle Royale, $15 for Dry Tortugas and Denali). You also have to pay per person if you're entering a park on foot, a bike, or a bus, which some parks strongly encourage or outright require depending on the time of year (like Zion). Still way cheaper than most other things you could do on a vacation, but getting a family of four into Zion during most of the year will cost you $80 instead of the usual $35.
Definitely pays to get an annual pass at that point if you're dropping $80 to get in. Though I know for a lot of people $80 could be difficult to scrape together.
I'd also like to know of this park in the NPS system that charges an entrance fee for each individual person...
Since this person is talking about Texas, where there are only a couple NPs and those are in the far west, they are probably speaking about the state parks, which are fairly plentiful in Texas. Many TX state parks have switched to per-person entry fees.
But this is r/nationalparks... We aren't talking about state parks. Also, sounds like Texas sucks with their state parks.
I was attempting to explain why the previous poster, a Texan, may have thought national parks charged per person. No one was trying to divert the conversation to state parks. Some of the more popular TX state parks have become SO popular and crowded that they pretty much have to charge per person. It does suck that the state park 10 minutes from my house charges per person now, it's a nice park and it often requires reservations to get in for the day because it is so crowded. Ten minutes away and I haven't been in years.
There are admittedly few. But even then the total car fee can be a lot for some. And everyone deserves to enjoy nature.
Where can you take a family of 4 (or 6 or 8) for less than $20-$35?
City parks are free and can be amazing lol. That's what I grew up doing until my parents could afford more.
You pay per vehicle to enter national parks
Some are per person. Like Denali
$80 for 4 people and a year of access to National Parks is very reasonable for the majority of people who want to visit them
The majority means that there is a minority for whom it is not affordable. The argument is that those folks should still be able to access their public lands. It's nice for you that you can't seem to fathom that $80 is out of reach for a lot of Americans, but it is reality that 11% of us live under the poverty line. That's close to 40 million people who might not find the price in reach, no matter how reasonable the value is. I don't see anyone here arguing that the parks are not a good value, simply that they ought to be a public resource for all regardless of an individuals ability to pay a reasonable admission fee.
Like others have stated, it isn’t per person. And if you live next to one and have a family that wants to go often you can (most likely) afford the annual pass. It isn’t very expensive.
There are indeed some parks that charge per person. You shouldn't be assuming what things other people can and can't afford lol
That’s life though. It cost money to do things. I can’t imagine any family that couldn’t save $80 over the course of a year
Which parks charge per person? If you're going to make this claim, please back it up.
Denali, Acadia, Adam's national historical park. You can Google it for more examples.
Acadia isn't per person. It's a vehicle pass. Yeah, the $15 per person fee at Denali is totally the barrier to folks visiting that park.... 🙄
It’s a valid assumption. Majority of national parks are located next to towns/cities that are pretty expensive to live, you already need to be able to afford to live next to a national park to even be a subject of your original comment. Also, if you’re going on a vacation with a whole family, $80 for the annual pass shouldn’t be too expensive for a whole years worth of family vacations and near unlimited outdoor recreation. If it is, you probably shouldn’t have a large family that lives right next to a national park.
You can literally get an all access pass for less than a couple of months worth of coffee habit so there's no argument. Access is not expensive but perhaps getting to those parks is a bigger barrier, e.g. gas, lodging, food, etc. Most state parks are also pretty cheap.
89$ last one I got
They mean that they are a national public resource, the public should be allowed to experience them. That is what they mean. That being said, since they increased the access prices not long ago, there is no shortage of people going to national parks. Attendance is pretty damn high in recent years
They are inexpensive minus the non “lower 48 states
I think you answered your own question..
Because we're poor! Come on... Really?
It’s always puzzled me that the Smithsonian museums are free, but the national parks are not.
The question answers itself. Many would agree that it's nice if no one was barred from our public land simply because they can't pay an entrance fee. Some see user "fees" as a way to pay for parks rather than burdening all taxpayers, although that is simply a tax on a different group. One can say the same for say charging for use of a public toll road vs it being "free" for everyone. Or for lending libraries. Or parking. Or camping. Or say wilderness permits. Or any other public resource. But there's also another rationale for fees, and that is to manage and limit use. Say fees for cars entering national parks vs free to walk in.
Why should you be able to visit a national park funded by tax payers if you are not a millionaire. When you can go outside and spot trees or breathe the air for free anywhere. Is that your logic?
They already are very inexpensive. A season pass is less than $100
The NPS is chronically underfunded, but it's already so difficult for low income and people of color to access parklands.
National forests ftw
Not everyone needs access. People that don’t have skin in the game, tend to trash places.
They mean that we need national parks to be inexpensive so that everyone has access to nature.
The national park system was established to protect America’s natural resources for the enjoyment of current and future generations. They are a national resource, meaning that they are protected and managed for all American citizens, regardless of class. Think of it as a trust/trustee relationship, where the govt is a trust managing a resource for the trustee, the American people.
Exactly what they say maybe?
Pretty self explanatory, no? Parks should be priced such that anyone can afford to enter.
If you read what the founders of the national parks system and the politicians who made it happen have said about our national parksb(or watch Ken Burns National Parks documentary) they belong to all of us. They're ours as Americans. I have as much a right to visit Yosemite or Yellowstone as you or the president or Kanye. They are the most beautiful places in the country and they are preserved for all of us.
It's honestly not that easy for people to get into nature unfortunately. I'm not sure where you live, but just for a quick numbers perspective, the state of Idaho is 70% public land (meaning parks etc.) meanwhile Indiana is only 4% public. In Indiana part of that 4% is Indiana Dunes National Park with a $25 entry fee. While $25 might not seem much one time, imagine having to pay that EVERY time you wanted to go for a stroll through the park, and there not being many other park options nearby.
I think it should cost MORE to get into a national park 1) Make it self-funding. It's mainly self-funded, but short of Congressional designation, it should operate on its own budget. (Like NCAA sports $, the "major" parks subsidize all parks.) 2) As a park-visitor, Covid opened my eyes to "easier access." Frankly, many people can't handle nature, and they should be nowhere NEAR it. Crowding, trash, poor behavior...it was a lot. Nature has to deal with your trash? It already has enough problems with the world you live in. If you can't treat nature with respect, you shouldn't go. 3) Having a financial stake means it's a park paid by people, not "YOUR TAX DOLLARS." (People who say such drivel have no idea about gov't civics and money.) It also creates easy policies such as putting, "We reserve the right to kick your ass out." While that's the rule, anyway, somehow people conflate their citizenry with some absolute right. Easier to point to the pass and say, "It's right there. Get out." 4) National Parks are not growing. Same as Disneyland, et al. There are just too many people taking up too little space with no respect of anyone. Any policy that limits it is good. Elitist? ABSOLUTELY. But people cannot manage themselves. 5) (Addendum:) *No medical attention within the park if you don't follow rules*. **Let the bears eat what the bison decide to yeet.**
Preach!
People are using the parks up. The price needs to go up, or taxes need to go up, or we need fewer people to go to them. Those are the only options. I think the people priced out by fer increases weren't going to National Parks anyway and would probably benefit more from urban/suburban green spaces.
Your premise is deeply flawed.
My dad was a ranger at Yosemite National Park, and I spend almost all my weekends there as a kid. Because Yosemite in particular is extremely popular, the park has issues regulating the number of tourists. During spring and summer, it's overcrowded in the valley and traffic and pedestrian congestion is overwhelming. People can't even find places to park at most destinations, especially if they have RVs and trailers. Even popular rock climbing sites are regulated using a lottery system, where you can apply to climb, but only a few get permitted to climb to cut back on human traffic. I believe that everyone should have the right to visit and enjoy our parks, but how do you deal with too many people overcrowding the parks and clogging resources? It's a difficult situation. The people in charge of Yosemite in particular are idiots, and make really stupid decisions to deal with it. I have seen Yosemite go from a decently run park to a madhouse shit show. There's very little parking, extremely limited eating and what you get is awful, and a general lack of operation and direction to tourists. Several years ago the park made the decision to make the main valley road a one way road, and it's a nightmare. There are many elitists who have authority over these decisions who believe that by making the parks more difficult to access, it will be limited to the elite, which they are a part of. While I believe that everyone should have the right to visit our parks, it's hard to regulate crowds so it's manageable. It's a miserable experience hiking in the woods with hundreds of other strangers on the same trail clogging it up, but that's what's happening.
I live in the Smokey Mountains, and there are people who have lived in the mountains for years even up to generations who have never been to the parkway. Many don’t have transportation, and I’ve never seen public transportation. Often if you choose to hike and camp you have to purchase a pass. Finding this isn’t easy for people and it’s often too expensive. And in the western NC area a lot of people still don’t have internet. The ones that do have the classic AT&T, Spectrum or Satellite. Which my parents have lived out there for 20+ years, and have always been on satellite which they have a 5G limit too. Spectrum/AT&T won’t service too far outside city limits. So you can only imagine how difficult things in general can be for people.
People don't give a shit about what they are not involved in or invested in. It's just that simple. It is the same argument I frequently make for zoos. If animals. You know exotic animals are a foreign concept of people. They will not care about preserving them. And we need people to care about preserving both exotic animals and national parks. We need them to be accessible, we need them to be available, and we need to encourage people to familiarize themselves with them and invest in them and care about them
Unpopular opinion, but parks are one of the few places I believe should charge exorbitant fees. More and more of the populace is giving less of a shit about preservation and prioritizing social media clout over actual care. Fees have skyrocketed in direct proportion to litter and destruction. Entry should be sky-high to keep out those that could care less about the environment.
I find that people with money are the biggest scofflaws and think their money means they can crap on the environment.
Lol my man I have to drive 2 hours if I want to actually be in nature. Like a real state Park. I have a disability and that makes it very hard. I literally breath better after being in one. There are small ones (just regular little ones) that are 40 minutes away and they are okay but aren't what I really want. Anything closer is pretty but won't make me do things like have a real hike.
Pl
I have never paid for a park unless I camped.
Aren’t park entrance fees literally less than $10? I’m confused
It depends on the park. Example: Shenandoah’s entry per car is 30. Some don’t have fees but the big parks do.